PROC. ENTOMOL. SOC. WASH. 119(4), 2017, pp. 565–574 THE MEALY PLUM APHID AND ITS CONGENERS: A SYNONYMIC REVISION OF THE PRUNUS-INFESTING APHID GENUS HYALOPTERUS (HEMIPTERA: APHIDIDAE) COLIN FAVRET,NARESH M. MESHRAM,GARY L. MILLER,JUAN MANUEL NIETO NAFRI´A, AND ANDREY V. S TEKOLSHCHIKOV (CF) University of Montreal, Department of Biological Sciences, Biodiversity Centre, 4101 rue Sherbrooke est, Montreal QC, H1X 2B2 Canada. (e-mail: [email protected]) (ORCID: 0000-0001-6243-3184); (NMM) Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Division of Entomology, Pusa Campus, New Delhi – 110012, India. (e-mail: [email protected]); (GLM) USDA-ARS, Systematic Entomology Laboratory, 10300 Baltimore Ave, Bldg. 005, BARC-West, Beltsville, MD 20705, U.S.A. (e-mail: [email protected]); (JMNN) Universidad de Leo´n, Departamento de Biodiversidad y Gestio´nAmbiental, 24071 Leo´n, Spain. (e-mail: [email protected]) (ORCID: 0000-0001-6714-2415); (AVS) Russian Academy of Sciences, Zoological Institute, Universitetskaya nab. 1, Saint Petersburg 199034, Russia. (e-mail: [email protected]) Abstract.—The three species of Hyalopterus Koch cause economic damage to various stone fruit trees of the genus Prunus L., H. pruni (Geoffroy), H. amygdali (Blanchard), and H. persikonus Miller et al. Although the third species was estab- lished recently, it has been suggested that one of the twelve older synonyms of the first two may be applicable to the third. We undertook a synonymic revision of the nominal species of Hyalopterus to clarify the taxonomy and nomenclature of the genus. The three valid species of Hyalopterus are affirmed to be H. pruni (the mealy plum aphid), H. amygdali, and H. arundiniformis Ghulamullah, stat. nov. We determined that H. mimulus Bo¨rner and H. persikonus are junior synonyms of H. arundiniformis, syn. nov., and that Brachysiphum kobachidzei Rusanova is not a synonym of H. amygdali but a valid species of Aphis, stat. nov., comb. nov. Aphis amygdalipersicae Mosley is likely a senior synonym of Brachycaudus helichrysi (Kaltenbach), syn. nov.; to maintain current usage, we establish the former as a nomen oblitum with respect to the latter. Finally, several other nominal species were un- evaluable and are therefore listed as nomina dubia. Key Words: almond, apricot, nomenclature, peach, plum DOI: 10.4289/0013-8797.119.4.565 Species of the aphid genus Hyalopterus market values in the United States in 2014 (Koch 1854) are important pests of stone of 6.4 billion, and 53, 629.1, and 332.2 fruits of the genus Prunus L., including million dollars (Agricultural Marketing especially almond, apricot, peach, and Resource Center 2017). Hyalopterus plum (including prunes), with respective species are known to alternate between 566 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON Prunus and Phragmites Adans. (Blackman MATERIALS AND METHODS and Eastop 2000). The genus name We evaluated the status and validity Hyalopterus was once used to refer to of the fifteen nominal species of Hy- anumberofaphidspecieswithshort alopterus listed by Remaudie`re and cornicles in the subfamily Aphidinae, Remaudie`re (1997) and Lozier et al. including several currently placed else- (2008). Study consisted primarily in where, e.g., Aphis hyperici Monell, reviewing the historical literature, es- Coloradoa abrotani (Koch), Hayhurstia pecially original descriptions, and the atriplicis (Linnaeus), Hyadaphis albus examination of the primary types of (Monzen), Longicaudus trirhodus nominal species, when available. Par- (Walker), and Semiaphis sphondylii ticular attention was paid to the possi- (Koch) (Favret 2017). Due to their ble synonyms of H. persikonus;type economically-important status, Hyalopterus specimens were identified using the keys species have attracted a lot of atten- to the species of Hyalopterus published tion and various authors have estab- by Lozier et al. (2008) and Rakauskas lished nominal species based on et al. (2013). Literature and type mate- relatively minor differences. Valid rial are listed with each nominal species, Hyalopterus species have thus accu- below. mulated many synonyms. As of the last published aphid catalog, there RESULTS were 12 names associated with two Aphis amygdali Blanchard 1840: 206 valid species, H. amygdali (Blanchard 1840), and H. pruni (Geoffroy 1762) Primary type information.—Host, Pru- (Remaudie`re and Remaudie`re 1997). nus persica (L.) Batsch; Locality, near However, a number of authors have Paris, France; Specimen(s), presumed lost provided morphological and molecu- or non-existent. lar evidence of a third species of Comments.—Despite its specific ep- Hyalopterus (Spampinato et al. 1988; ithet, this species was first described Mosco et al. 1997; Lozier et al. 2007, from peach with no explicit indication of 2008; Poulios et al. 2007), this third how it differed from the only other species having been given the name nominal species described at that time, H. persikonus Miller et al. in Lozier H. pruni. Boisduval (1867) associated et al. 2008. Although the evidence A. amygdali with almond (Prunus dulcis for the validity of three species of (Mill.) D.A. Webb (=P. amygdalus Hyalopterus is strong, previous stud- Batsch)). Bo¨rner (1952) treated H. pruni ies did not evaluate the possible val- and H. amygdali side by side, listing idity of the many synonyms and it does many synonyms of each, and no study not appear that the type material of has ever suggested these two should these nominal species was examined. themselves be considered synonyms. We Blackman and Eastop (2011) suggested thus treat H. amygdali as one of the three that an older name may have priority valid species of Hyalopterus. Our mod- over H. persikonus.Toestablishthe ern concept of the species has evolved validity of the three species in question and become refined over time, more by and assign them their correct names, we taxonomic tradition than by specific undertook a taxonomic and nomencla- reference to Blanchard’s (1840) de- tural study of the nominal species of scription. Several recent descriptions Hyalopterus. and diagnoses are available (Nieto VOLUME 119, NUMBER 4 567 Nafrı´aetal.2005,Lozieretal.2008, 1996; Remaudie`re and Remaudie`re 1997; Rakauskas et al. 2013). Ortego 1998; Halbert et al. 2000; Conclusion.—Valid as Hyalopterus Remaudie`re and Talhouk 2001; Noordam amygdali (Blanchard). 2004; Sorin and Arakawa 2005; Pe´rez Hidalgo et al. 2009; Favret et al. 2010; Adachi 2012; Buga and Stekolshchikov Aphis amygdalipersicae Mosley 2012; Piffaretti et al. 2012; 2013; 1841: 684 Zamora Mejı´as et al. 2012; Miller et al. Primary type information.—Host, 2016). Prunus persica (L.) Batsch; Locality, Conclusion.—Nomen dubium. Senior Britain; Specimen(s), presumed lost or synonym of Brachycaudus helichrysi non-existent. (Kaltenbach 1843), syn. nov. Nomen Comments.—Mosley (1841) described oblitum with respect to B. helichrysi; B. this species briefly: “body light green; helichrysi a nomen protectum with re- eyes deep crimson; antennae long; legs spect to A. amygdalipersicae. and tubercles, which are very short, of an amber color.” He did not mention the presence of wax, a significant oversight, Aphis arundinis Fabricius 1775: 734 and the cornicle color (tubercles) does Primary type information.—Host, not match that of Hyalopterus.We Calamagrostis epigeois (L.) Roth; Local- therefore suspect his species may not be ity, Europe; Specimen(s), non-existent. Hyalopterus at all, but more likely Comments.—The original morpho- asynonymofthepolyphagousspecies logical description of this nominal spe- Brachycaudus helichrysi (Kaltenbach cies is too brief to clearly place it in any 1843). The Mosley species has nomen- specific taxon. However, Fabricius clatural priority over that of Kaltenbach. (1775) named “Arundinis epigeois” as The less-than-certain synonymy and the host, today’s Calamagrostis epigeois the long-standing use of the name B. (L.) Roth. This plant species is not a host helichrysi argue against establishing of Hyalopterus, hence the placement of a straight-forward synonymy. We there- A. arundinis as a synonym of Diuraphis fore here consider A. amygdalipersicae calamagrostis (Ossiannilsson 1959) by a nomen dubium and furthermore Eastop and Hille Ris Lambers (1976). establish it, per ICZN Article 23.9 Kaltenbach (1843), Koch (1854), Buckton (International Commission on Zoolog- (1879), Del Guercio (1900), and Patch ical Nomenclature (ICZN) 1999), as (1914) essentially stated that A. arundinis a nomen oblitum with respect to B. is closely related to but distinct from helichrysi. Aphis amygdalipersicae has H. pruni,andTheobald(1927)went not been used as a valid name after one step further treating H. arundinis 1899, whereas B. helichrysi has been and H. pruni as synonyms. However, the used as valid at least 25 times by at Fabricius (1775) description places it out- least 10 authors in the last 50 years, side the scope of Hyalopterus.Giventhe over a span of more than 10 years confused history of the name, we do not (Smith and Cermeli 1979; Raychaudhuri attempt to place A. arundinis definitively, et al. 1980, 1981; Remaudie`re 1983; nor do we attempt to rectify its nomen- Harrington 1985; Sorin 1992; Verma clatural priority over D. calamagrostis. and Das 1992; Blackman and Eastop Conclusion.—Not Hyalopterus, nomen 1994, 2000, 2006; Aldryhim and Khalil dubium. 568 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON Aphis gracilis Walker 1852: 1040 With clearing and remounting, the type specimens of Oestlund’s